(2018-02-18, 00:04)41south Wrote: Brian I'd love to put one in NZ - but there never seem to be kits available

Hi 41South, I don't think it is that the kits are not available! If you read this forum, you can see that a large number of kits were sent to South Africa. Only 10% of them actually came online, and none of them are online at present. This also happens in all the other areas, even Europe, and even if the stations do come online, more than half of them are not well adjusted, nor given the appropriate TLC!
Sending kits to Universities, Institutions or Foundation research centers is also problematical, as personnel continually change and then the stations tend to be neglected or fall into disuse! :-(
The better stations appear to be operated by people with a genuine long term interest and not just a passing whim!
Africa, South America, The Atlantic and Pacific Islands and South-East Asia are in need of more Operators/Stations and I hope that we can get these places going soon.
Chicken and Egg situation, you need a critical minimum number of stations, to make areas function well.
Remotely operated stations, have additional problems, and unless there is someone on site, that can be instructed to maintain them, tend to die suddenly! :-(
(Many reasons, besides fault conditions, including Theft and vandalism! Solar panels and Batteries etc., are a "real prize" in some parts of the world!)
Kindest regards,

(2018-02-18, 00:04)41south Wrote: Brian I'd love to put one in NZ - but there never seem to be kits available

Hi 41South, I don't think it is that the kits are not available! If you read this forum, you can see that a large number of kits were sent to South Africa. Only 10% of them actually came online, and none of them are online at present. This also happens in all the other areas, even Europe, and even if the stations do come online, more than half of them are not well adjusted, nor given the appropriate TLC!
Sending kits to Universities, Institutions or Foundation research centers is also problematical, as personnel continually change and then the stations tend to be neglected or fall into disuse! :-(
The better stations appear to be operated by people with a genuine long term interest and not just a passing whim!
Africa, South America, The Atlantic and Pacific Islands and South-East Asia are in need of more Operators/Stations and I hope that we can get these places going soon.
Chicken and Egg situation, you need a critical minimum number of stations, to make areas function well.
Remotely operated stations, have additional problems, and unless there is someone on site, that can be instructed to maintain them, tend to die suddenly! :-(
(Many reasons, besides fault conditions, including Theft and vandalism! Solar panels and Batteries etc., are a "real prize" in some parts of the world!)
Kindest regards,

I would also add "The better stations appear to be operated by people..." ... in locations that don't have too much RFI. :-)

I think that there are not that many good stations (at least in Region 3) mostly for these reasons.

Mike, I respectfully disagree with your statement About RFIi locations. If you look at who makes the top 20 or so the most frequently, it the the RED and low number stations ie, the old timers. They are "operated by people with a genuine long term interest and not just a passing whim!"

They are they ones that experimented and came up with the solutions caused by RFI and other interference we get to enjoy and implement to make our stations perform better much quicker in a heavy RFI environment.

(2018-02-18, 20:25)mwaters Wrote: Or, people have trouble wth the documentation and/or seldom --if ever-- visit this forum. The way to help is to contact them, if only a few at first.

Hi Mike, You Know that I am doing that! I have helped some stations, mainly by contacting them personally by email.
Yes, the forum stats for stations show that few people ever visit or read anything posted in the forums!
Many stations have opted out of contact by email by other participants. Why I do not understand?

Hi Dries, I have to agree with you, in almost all locations, there are things that can be done to improve the situation, especially in regards to setting up a station to mitigate the worst of the problems, and many solutions have been well documented, and continue to be resolved as new problems become apparent.
However, Mike is right, in regards to the fact that some people do not read the documentation or the ample information that is available in the various forums.
One big improvement that could still be made, is with the "fully automatic" operation of stations!
I would suggest that they start at the lowest gains, and a reasonably high theshold and then slowly and gradually "improve", until they start to "sense the noise" and begin to receive strokes, and then stop adjusting. Any further adjustments requiring manual attention.
Rather than the present situation, where they seem to start with the Highest gains and Lowest thresholds and then reduce the gains until they "oscillate" in and out of "Interference mode" and never really quite make it, in terms of efficiency.
Optimising manually, takes time and patience, but inevitably leads to better results.
If we must have a "FULLY AUTOMATIC MODE", let's make it so that it does the minimum amount of "Damage" to the network as a whole.

IMHO, It is better to have stations slightly under-performing in the recording of strokes, rather than have them sending thousands of superfluous signals to the servers!
One thing is clear, if these stations can not operate properly under low levels of activity, then they are going to perform even worse, under the high level activity of the Summer storms!

Another possible option, might be, for the server to suspend or shut down these stations, and for an email to be sent to their owners, informing them that their station needs some attention!

(2018-02-18, 22:40)readbueno Wrote: IMHO, It is better to have stations slightly under-performing in the recording of strokes, rather than have them sending thousands of superfluous signals to the servers!

Another possible option, might be, for the server to suspend or shut down these stations, and for an email to be sent to their owners, informing them that their station needs some attention!

Hi Brian,

I don't recall seeing any postings by Ergon, Tobi or other devs regarding the capacity/limitations of the network and that we should be limiting the number of signals sent? In fact I remember reading a post from Tobi to the contrary where he says he sets up his stations to be close to the threshold which generates a lot of signals and quote "he sends all that data to the server so it can sort it out".

If there are posts I stand corrected, however are you 100% sure that we should be limiting the quantity of signals sent, particularly as the system already has built-in safeguards that put a station into interference so that bulk signals are not sent.

If there are no such limitations, then the arguable aim of an operator should be to send as many real lightning signals in his area rather than worry about how "efficient" he is. I'd argue that its better for the network overall to have a system setup to send 100 real lightning strokes out of 10,000 signals "heard" than to send 10 stokes out of 100 signals in the same time period under the same conditions because the network receives 90 more lightning stokes it can potentially use. If the network/servers can handle the traffic, why limit your stations potential?

(2018-02-18, 22:40)readbueno Wrote: IMHO, It is better to have stations slightly under-performing in the recording of strokes, rather than have them sending thousands of superfluous signals to the servers!

Another possible option, might be, for the server to suspend or shut down these stations, and for an email to be sent to their owners, informing them that their station needs some attention!

Hi Brian,

I don't recall seeing any postings by Ergon, Tobi or other devs regarding the capacity/limitations of the network and that we should be limiting the number of signals sent? In fact I remember reading a post from Tobi to the contrary where he says he sets up his stations to be close to the threshold which generates a lot of signals and quote "he sends all that data to the server so it can sort it out".

If there are posts I stand corrected, however are you 100% sure that we should be limiting the quantity of signals sent, particularly as the system already has built-in safeguards that put a station into interference so that bulk signals are not sent.

If there are no such limitations, then the arguable aim of an operator should be to send as many real lightning signals in his area rather than worry about how "efficient" he is. I'd argue that its better for the network overall to have a system setup to send 100 real lightning strokes out of 10,000 signals "heard" than to send 10 stokes out of 100 signals in the same time period under the same conditions because the network receives 90 more lightning stokes it can potentially use. If the network/servers can handle the traffic, why limit your stations potential?

Cheers
Ian

Hi Ian, I have no problem with stations sending "Real Lightning Data!" However, how can you compare that to a station sending 90,000 signal+ per hour to the server with no recorded strokes.
You double posted this and I have replied more comprehensively in the other topic!
kindest regards,